W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2009

Re: http://ld2sd.deri.org/lod-ng-tutorial/

From: Martin Hepp (UniBW) <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:01:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4A4099DF.5080603@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
CC: mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com, david@dbooth.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
It was not my intend to insult anybody. But I still don't get why some 
of you want to recommend a pattern that breaks with a current W3C 
recommendation just on the basis that there are many documents out there 
that break with it. The Swoogle post from 2007 simply says that there 
are many documents out there that are not using it properly. But there 
are also many RDF resources out there that break with LOD principles and 
LOD recommendations and nobody would dare to question the principles 
solely on the basis of bad implementations.

And Michael, please be frank - there is a tendency in the LOD community 
which goes along the lines of "OWL and DL-minded SW research has proven 
obsolete anyway, so we LOD guys and girls just pick and use the bits and 
pieces we like and don't care about the rest".

As Kingsley said - deceptively simple solutions are cheap in the 
beginning but can be pretty costly in the long run.

What made the Web so powerful is that its Architecture is extremely 
well-thought underneath the first cover of simplicity. Exactly the 
opposite of "I will use this pragmatic pattern until it breaks" but 
instead "architectural beauty for eternity".

Just look at the http specs. The fact that you can do a nice 303 is 
because someone in the distant past very cleverly designed a protocol 
goes well beyond the pragmatic "I have a URL (sic!) and want to fetch 
the Web page in HTML (sic!)".

So when being proud of being the "pragmatic guys" keep in mind that 
nothing is as powerful in practice as something that is theoretically 
consistent.

Best
Martin


Michael Hausenblas wrote:
> Martin,
>
>   
>> (moving this to LOD public as suggested)
>>     
>
> Thanks.
>
>   
>> General note: I am quite unhappy with a general movement in parts of the
>> LOD community to clash with the OWL world even when that is absolutely
>> unnecessary. It is just a bad engineering practice to break with
>> existing standards unless you can justify the side-effects. And this
>> stubborn "i don't care what the OWL specs says" pattern is silly, in
>> particular if the real motivation of many proponents of this approach is
>> that they don't want or cannot read the OWL specs.
>>     
>
> I don't think it is particular helpful to insult people, to utter
> imputations and judge a book by its cover. If we can agree to stop using
> such terminology I'm more than happy to continue the discussion.
>
>   
>> On the other hand - what is your pain with  using RDFa in a way so that
>> the extracted RDF model is equivalent to the model from an RDF/XML or N3
>> serialization? Why this absolutely arbitrary "we LOD guys don't like
>> owl:import ( we don't like OWL anyway, you know?), so we simply omit it"
>> behavior?
>>
>> It is just silly to break with established standards just for saving 1 -
>> 2 triples.
>>     
>
> Ok, so, again, for the chaps who didn't get the entire story. Martin
> champions the use of owl:import (and wants to see it written down as a good
> practice?) in linked data.
>
> My take on this is as follows: when one takes the linked data principles and
> applies them in practice (esp. referring to #2, here) there are naturally a
> dozens implementation choices as the principles simply leave room for
> interpretation. 
>
> The people here know me from the RDFa TF, from the AWWSW TF and last but not
> least from the LOD community as a simple-minded, pragmatic guy, I hope ;)
>
> So, my hunch would be: the market will make the final decision, not a Martin
> Hepp and also not a Michael Hausenblas. If people think this is a clever
> idea, they will use it when publishing linked data. AFAIK, to date the usage
> of owl:import in linked data is close to non-existing (even in pre-LOD times
> it seemed to be not very common [1]).
>
> Concluding, I'd propose - respecting the nature of good *practice* - once we
> notice a serious usage of owl:import in LOD data, we may want to rehash this
> topic.
>
> Cheers,
>       Michael
>
> [1] http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2007/06/15/how-owlimport-is-used/
>
>   

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  mhepp@computer.org
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data!
========================================================================

Webcast:
http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/

Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: 
"Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology"
http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp

Tool for registering your business:
http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/

Overview article on Semantic Universe:
http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe

Project page and resources for developers:
http://purl.org/goodrelations/

Tutorial materials:
Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey

http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009






Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 09:01:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:21 UTC